Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Which disciplines or degree titles were explicitly listed as professional in the 2026 DOE rulemaking?
Executive summary
The negotiated rulemaking process produced a narrower proposed definition of “professional degree” that kept some long-recognized programs and explicitly added clinical psychology to the examples, while excluding many fields (nursing, physician assistant, occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology and others are reported as at risk of losing professional designation) in reporting and advocacy responses [1] [2] [3]. The Department of Education and negotiators said the change stems from re‑interpreting a decades‑old definition to limit the list from roughly 2,000 programs to under 600, though exact final wording and the full list were still tied to a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at the time of reporting [2] [4] [5].
1. What the committee explicitly listed: “Clinical psychology” was added to the examples
Negotiated rulemaking participants reached consensus on a narrower definition that retained existing examples of professional degrees and explicitly added clinical psychology programs to that shorter list [1]. AACOM’s report on the end of the RISE negotiated rulemaking also notes that certain long‑standing medical professional degrees like the DO retained their professional designation, indicating selective inclusion rather than a wholesale removal [6].
2. Fields widely reported as excluded or at risk
Multiple outlets, advocacy groups and social posts reported that many health and education‑adjacent programs would be excluded under the new narrow definition — notably physician assistant programs, advanced nursing degrees (including nurse practitioners), occupational therapy, audiology, speech‑language pathology, and several public‑health and education programs [2] [3] [4] [7]. Professional organizations representing nurse practitioners publicly urged the Department to amend the definition so NP programs remain eligible, signaling those programs are not among the explicitly preserved list created in negotiations [3].
3. The Department’s defense and continuity claim
A Department of Education spokesperson told fact‑checkers the agency is using the same historical definition of “professional degree” and that the proposed regulatory language “aligns with this historical precedent,” framing the narrower list as consistent with long‑standing regulation rather than a novel exclusion [5]. Snopes’ reporting captures that defense while also summarizing the practical effect: different borrowing caps apply to “professional” vs. other graduate programs under the new student‑loan law, driving the stakes of the classification [5].
4. Numbers and scope: from ~2,000 programs to fewer than 600 (reported)
Public reporting and social commentary summarized negotiators’ work as reducing the set of programs that count as professional from roughly 2,000 to fewer than 600; those figures were used to illustrate the scale of the change, though they originate in secondary reporting and posts rather than a single official enumerated list published in the sources provided [2]. Advocacy groups like ASPPH anticipated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and urged institutions to comment during the expected 30‑day comment window [4].
5. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Higher‑education and professional organizations (nursing, public health, allied health) present this as an exclusionary move that will narrow access to larger federal loan limits and worsen workforce shortages; they urge amendment and public comment [3] [4]. The Department frames the change as a return to historical precedent and a clarifying of regulatory language, with an implied goal of limiting what qualifies for the higher borrowing caps [5]. Critics and media highlight potential fiscal discipline motives and the political context driving rule changes, while professional groups emphasize service‑delivery impacts — both views reflect institutional or sectoral interests.
6. What the sources do not provide or confirm
Available sources do not provide a single complete, official list of every discipline or degree title the Department’s proposed regulatory text will explicitly label “professional” versus “non‑professional.” The exact proposed regulatory language and full enumerated list were described as forthcoming in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and tied to the 2026 implementation timeline [4] [5] [8]. Reports and advocacy materials identify many specific programs they say would be excluded, but an authoritative table from ED in these sources was not published.
7. Practical next steps and what to watch
Watch for the Department of Education’s formal Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the 30‑day public comment period referenced by stakeholders; that NPRM will contain the definitive proposed text and any explicit list of professional degree examples [4] [8]. Expect continued pushback from nursing, allied‑health, public‑health and education groups and potential legal questions about interpretation of the decades‑old definition, as reflected in negotiators’ deliberations and sector statements [9] [3].
Limitations: This summary uses only the documents and reporting provided; the complete ED rule text or an authoritative roster of included/excluded degrees was not contained in the supplied sources [4] [5].